2016 CLC 1871 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

MUDASIR ILLAHI VS FAROOQUE AHMED KHAN 1987 MLD 2149, 1988 SCMR 819, 1989 SCMR 1366, 1992 SCMR 2400, 1992 SCMR 46, 1993 CLC 2370, 1996 SCMR 1178, 1998 SCMR 2119, 2001 SCMR 1197, 2002 SCMR 241, 2004 SCMR 578, 2008 SCMR 398, 2010 MLD 665, 2012 CLC 793, Eviction petition--Term , Proof--TERM , Requirement--Term , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--15 , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--16 , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--18 , Ss. 15(2)(vii), 16 & 18----Constitution of Pakistan, Art.23---eviction petition---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Proof---Disclosure of existing business by landlord---Change of ownership, notice for---Requirement---Non-service of notice under S.18 of the Ordinance---Effect---Fundamental right as to provision of property---Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition, but the appellate court accepted the same---Validity---Tenant was occupying the demised shop vide agreement, which had been executed between the father of the legal heirs and the tenant and on expiry of the agreement, another rent agreement had been executed between the same parties---Tenant had denied the execution of said subsequent agreement, but as he had not produced any evidence in support of his claim controverting the execution of the second agreement and had been paying monthly rent as per the second rent agreement and subsequently depositing the same in the court in the names of the legal heirs the execution of the second agreement had stood proved---Tenant knowing the change of ownership in favour of the legal heirs being his real sons, had acknowledged them as the landlords of the demised premises---Tenant was depositing the monthly rent in the court; therefore, there was no need to serve the notice under S.18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Requirement of the said notice, after acknowledgement of the legal heirs as the landlords, had become infructuous---Filing of present application was sufficient for the purpose of notice for change of ownership---Non-service of the notice under S.18 of the Ordinance, therefore, would not defeat and frustrate the ground of bona fide need of the landlord (legal heirs) who were the new owners/landlords of the demised premises, particularly when they had dropped the ground of default in payment of the rent against the tenant---Landlords (legal heirs) had been running their business in the rented shops and wanted to establish their independent business in the demised premises---Tenant had failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish ownership of the legal heirs of landlord (deceased) pertaining to the shops where they were currently running their business---Landlords had verified the averments of the rent application in their affidavits produced in evidence maintaining the requirement of demised shops for their personal bona fide need to establish their independent business; whereas the tenant had been unable to shake the statements of the petitioners---Disclosure of present business, being carried out by the landlords or nature of the business which they had intended to establish, was not essential---Shops in possession of the landlords were on rent and they were not the owners of the same; thus, it was not necessary for them to categorically express the factum of insufficiency of the available space of the rented shops---Landlords had intended to establish their business in their own shops, which was their legal right covered under Art.23 of the Constitution---Sole testimony of the landlords was sufficient to establish their bona fide need of the premises--- High Court, upheld the impugned judgment---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.